By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant in OP.232/03 is that the respondent is the foreman of a monthly kuri namely 15th day monthly kuri and the said kuri was having 60 instalments commencing from 15.5.95. The monthly instalment payable was Rs.5000/- and the price amount was Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant subscribed a kuri ticket in 15th day monthly kuri as per statement No.354. The complainant joined in the kuri on the 38th instalment by paying the entire instalments and subsequently remitted instalments upto 42 which is inclusive of the period 15.10.98. Due to some ulterior motive respondent has not accepting and crediting the kuri instalments in the said kuri from 43rd onwards. The kuri was terminated on 15.4.2000. But the respondent company has not repaid the kuri amount to the complainant. The complainant made several requests for getting the amount but not paid. The attitude taken by respondent company will amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the complaint is barred by limitation. The kuri was terminated on 15.4.00 and the limitation period of two years has been completed on 15.4.02. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The complainant is not a subscriber to the kuri conducted by the respondents. The earlier chairman of company E.O. Lawrence has been terminated from the company for committing financial tactics and with the concurrence of this person this complaint is filed. There are documents fabricated in the name of relative of E.O. Lawrence to make the relatives as subscribers of the kuri. There was another case filed by the brother of complainant, C.O. Sabu before the Sub Court, Thrissur as O.S.799/01 and that suit has been dismissed. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant did not subscribe to any kuri conducted by the respondents. All the tickets of the 15th day kuri were full on the first instalment itself. So if anybody wanted to join the kuri it could only be by transfer. One Hamsa had subscribed to the 15th day kuri as per statement No.353. He never asked for transfer of his kuri. So the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since Hamsa is not made a party. E.O. Lawrence the earlier chairman of company had fabricated documents of the respondent company with the concurrence of certain staff of the company and scored the name of Hamsa in the register and placed the name of complainant. There are criminal case pending against E.O. Lawrence and some of the earlier staff of the company. E.O. Lawrence was terminated from the company. Hamsa is the friend of director Joy Thomas and on the personal grudge to Joy Thomas by E.O. Lawrence some of the passbooks were taken by E.O. Lawrence and fabricated. The complainant in O.S.234/03 is the brother of complainant in this case. It is unbelievable and denied the remittance of 38instalments together and no receipts to prove the same. The payments made by the complainant are kept in the suspense account of respondent company. If passbook and receipts are submitted the company is ready to make payment. The said kuri has been terminated and the amount was already realized to Hamsa. There is no cause of action against this respondent.
3. The averments of complaint O.P.234/03 are that the complainant subscribed a kuri ticket in the 15th day monthly kuri as per statement No.355. The kuri was having 60 monthly instalments commencing from 15.5.95. The monthly instalments payable was Rs.5000/- and the price amount was Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant joined in the kuri on the 38th instalment by paying the entire instalments and subsequently remitted instalments upto 47 which is inclusive of the period 15.3.99. Due to some ulterior motive respondent has not accepting and crediting the kuri instalments in the said kuri from 48th instalment onwards. The kuri was terminated on 15.4.2000 but the amount has not repaid so far. A lawyer notice was sent to the respondent demanding the amount but the respondent sent a reply stating untenable contentions. But the amount has not paid so far. This is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
4. The counter averments are self same in O.P.232/03.
5. The common points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondent?
(2) If so reliefs and costs.
6. The evidence adduced in O.P.232/03 consists of oral testimony of RW1, Exts. P1 to P3, Exts. R1 to R5. The evidence in O.P.234/03 consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R5.
7. Points: It is the case of complainants in both the case is that both of them subscribed a kuri ticket in the 15th day monthly kuri conducted by respondent. The statement number of complainant in OP.232/03 is 354 and the statement number in the other case is 355. Both of them were joined in the kuri on the 38th instalment. It is their case that by paying the entire instalments together they have joined in the kuri on the 38th instalment. But according to them due to some ulterior motive the respondent has not accepted the kuri instalments further and at last the kuri terminated on 15.4.2000 and the amounts were not returned to complainants. But the respondent contended that the complainants are not subscribers of the kuri as stated in the complaint.
8. According to the company the kuries were full in the first instalment itself and it can be subscribed only by way of transfer. According to the respondent one Hamsa is the subscriber of both these kuries stated by complainants. But at the same time the complainants have no case that Hamsa transferred his kuri to the complainant. It is their contention that both of them joined in the kuri on the 38th instalment by paying entire instalments together.
9. Passbooks produced by complainants and marked as Ext. P1 in both cases. There is nothing mentioned in Ext. P1 passbooks about the remittances made by complainants. It is their contention that by paying the 38 instalments in total they entered into the kuri. That amount will come to Rs.2,10,000/- and if such payments were made definitely it should be entered in the passbooks. There are no such entries. The pages in passbooks simply scored till 38th instalments.
10. In Ext. P1 in O.P.234/03 the entry of payment is seen from 44th instalment to 47th instalments. At the same time the respondent contends that the kuri was actually subscribed one Hamsa and he is paying instalments to the kuri. E.O. Lawrence earlier chairman of the respondent company with the concurrence of some staff of the respondent company had fabricated accounts of respondent company. In the first page of Ext. P1 documents the address of both the complainants is not written. The 7th page is remained blank and the signature of the subscriber is not seen on page No.23. As observed by Sub Judge in Ext. R1 in the 24th page of Ext. P1 documents the date of receipt of amount is not shown and E.O. Lawrence is signed in the receipt of this amount. It is the case of complainants that they have remitted the kuri amount upto 38th instalment in total. But from Ext. P1 documents it cannot be seen and no other receipts are produced by the complainants to prove the same. It is the definite case of respondent that E.O. Lawrence had fabricated the documents with intention to cheat the respondent company. The complainants produced Ext. P2 series receipts to show the payments made towards the company and these payments are admitted by respondents also.
11. It is the case of respondent that both these kuries are in the name of Hamsa. Ext. R1 is the kuri agreement executed by Hamsa and with some others in favour of the company. It is the case of respondents from the very beginning that both the kuries are stand in the name of Hamsa and the address is also given in the counter. In Ext. R1 also his address is there. But no steps taken by complainants to examine Hamsa before the Forum. In the complaints both of them submitted that they have entered in the kuri on the 38th instalment by paying the entire amount together. But in the reply notice they have no such case and in the lawyer notice it is stated that without default the kuri was paid for 42 instalments and from 43rd instalment onwards due to financial difficulties he could not remit the amount. But in the complaint it is stated that they have joined the kuri in 38th instalment and not 42nd instalment. This contradictory contentions itself show that this is a false case built by complainants.
12. It is the case of respondent that the amounts remitted by complainants were kept in the suspense account and the Ext. P2 series receipts would show that the respondent was issuing receipts for collection of amount. Since no receipts are produced the case of complainants cannot be accepted at all. It is unbelievable that by paying Rs.2,10,000/- in total no receipts are accepted for the remittance. These are showing the case of complainants are false.
13. Ext. R1 is the copy of the judgement in O.S.799/99 of Sub Court, Thrissur. It would show that the brother of complainant in O.P.232/03 approached the Sub Court with similar claims and the Sub Court dismissed the claim of complainants and decreed for the amount kept in suspense account. The case was disposed on 3.4.03 and both these cases are filed before the Forum on 16.4.03. From the above discussion it is clear that the cases are filed as experimental. There is no evidence brought to show that further proceedings are pending against Ext. R1 order.
14. Ext. P3 is the copy of judgement of C.J.M. Court, Thrissur and would show the finding as not guilty of the accused. E.O. Lawrence is the first accused and found acquitted as per the judgement. But this is in no way affect the cases filed before the Forum. RW1 is examined and he is the present managing director of the company. He deposed that there is appeal from Ext. P3 order. But no copy is produced and he doesn’t even know in which court the appeal is pending. According to his version the complainant remitted amount towards the kuri which is not stand in his name. So they kept the amount in suspense account. He deposed that one complaint has been made by Hamsa with regard to his kuri. But no copy of complaint produced before the Forum. During cross examination he deposed that he doesn’t know the whereabouts of Hamsa. But during re-examination he clarified that Hamsa is in gulf. The marking of Ext. R5 is opposed by complainant and it is marked subject to proof. The complainants stated that it is only a photostat copy and there is not even attested. It is true that it is only a photostat copy and it is not attested. But Hamsa is the person to dispute Ext. R5. He is not brought before the Forum by complainants. They can very well take steps to examine Hamsa since his address is clearly mentioned in counter and also in Ext. R1. This is not done. So it is the presumption that Hamsa is there in the address given by respondent. The respondent also produced Ext. R4 and stated that this is a certified copy of application for ticket submitted by Hamsa. But it remains blank except the address portion of subscriber. It is true that the signature of the subscriber can be seen but it is not clear for what purpose this is issued. The heading is application for ticket but from Ext. R4 it cannot be realized that for which kuri it was submitted. So it is not reliable. It is proved that the complainants did not make payments as claimed in the complaints. But they are entitled for the amount kept in the suspense account.
15. In the result both the complaints are dismissed and the respondent is directed to return the amount kept in the suspense account belonging to complainants within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of August 2011.
